Value (or better, “relevance”) is what determines what the mind is going to choose as “matter” or “substance” or “entity”. That is an issue of epistemology, not really ontology. Ontology is formed from the predefined epistemological entities. Once it is decided that there is something that we are going to call an “electron” because of its relevance to our life (epistemological issue), an ontological construction is formed regarding exactly how the dubbed “electrons” behave.
But Hume’s “is-ought” dichotomy involves such things as ethics and moral values; “is it a fact that people must behave this way, or is it something that people ought to do for some presumed purpose”. That issue is only vaguely ontological and has nothing to do with epistemology.
Frankly, from my perspective, that entire era of philosophers; Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer,…, were no more than children rising from a dark age, but no where near being fully awake (“enlightened”). It is silly to be still discussing them in worship of their greatness. One might as well be worshiping Newton’s Laws of Motion. Seriously, Newton had more going for him than the rest of that crew and he has been well passed over. For heaven’s sake, grow up already.
Newton is merely an example of someone who woke up to the idea of thinking about how things are or aren’t. My statement was that EVEN HE has been well surpassed by those wiling to think even more. So when it comes to Hume and Kant and the like, it is ridiculous to be arguing about their opinions still to this day. It is very much like arguing whether of the third graders, John and Sally, which had a more meaningful understanding of algebra. Who really cares? Does reality have no significance to you at all?
I’d make an exception for Hume. I think his extreme kind of scepticism (the problems of induction and causality) has never been adequately refuted by subsequent philosophers. All the others have been argued “through” by subsequent generations; Hume seems to have been argued “around”.
The same would have been said (and very probably was) about Newton, 200 years ago.
If you can’t think PAST those people, then you aren’t thinking at all.
I don’t miss the point so much as bend it towards something I feel is [perhaps] more relevant to…the human condition?
For example, the misuse of the word reality.
Newton is as much at a loss here as all the others in proposing a more enlightened distinction between the way world is in reality and the way the world ought to be in reality. And it is something physicists never really consider with respect to the relationships they probe.
Some things are real for all of us. And some things only appear to be real from a point of view.
It would be a faith to believe that such a situation exists…it would also be a faith to assume such a situation doesn’t. It all comes down to whether you believe in God or not.
I think that there is a very good chance that God exists, and as belief in His existence brings many benefits, then why not favour belief in Him rather than disbelief in Him?
The argument between differing descriptions of God, and which is correct, is simply settled on outcome (ie, which society is the best to live in).